I think moreso than most other states of its size Florida is pretty uneven. Panhandle vs. Orlando area vs. Miami area are just completely different worlds. Different cultures, different terrain, different climate, different activities. The only constants I can think of offhand that matter are the firearm laws, homestead exemption and lack of state income tax.

very true. Panhandle(Pensacola, Destin, Orange Beach) vs. Tampa/Orlando/Sarasota/Miami is totally different. the later is a great combination of rural and city live where as the first option is basically more rural with the exception of some pretty nice beaches.

The Supreme court shouldn't even be allowed to hear this case( and wasn't the original intent of duty of the supreme court), nor the case from California regarding gay marriage nor any other law that the relevant states supreme court has already ruled on.

The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over federal matters. In the case of gay marriage, a federal statute called the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was being debated. If you paid attention to the arguments, the justices questioned why the federal statute was necessary and whether it interfered with the states' right to define marriage. That was one part of the cases.

The second part is whether California can define marriage differently than other states. When it comes to legal differences between states, that is appropriate for SCOTUS.

There is a REASON why each state has a supreme court. 7 black robes in Washington should not be overturning/hearing on individual state laws/rulings unless the founding papers of this great land specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to do so.

There are federal implications in the case of gay marriage.

In this particular case, every state ought to have a ruling on this subject and be done with it instead of one court ruling for all.

Yeah... marriage has *always* been a legal thing (specifically, it usually falls under property laws, from archaic laws which effectively or literally defined the wife as the property of the husband up to the modern versions where it determines things like next of kin). It just used to be that laws were created by the religious leaders of the community. However, if you look back into the very earliest experiments with freedom (or at least tolerance) of religion and secular laws, they all still speak of marr

I think that's what the OP is saying. "Marriage" is not in The Constitution, therefore, the federal government should have absolutely no involvement.Marriage was a religious thing long before it found its way into law. As you point out, the First Amendment could also be construed to indicate that marriage is none of the government's business.

Slavery was legal because some states said so; we had to fight a bloody war to make the point that it was not. States are not independent. Get over it. The state's rights thing has been invoked in slavery/gay-sex-crime/keep-the-former-slaves-out-of-our-schools/miscegenation/jesus-is-king/we-can-marry-kids case for over a hundred fifty years. No matter how many times the Confederacy trots this out, we will slap it down.

Marriage was, is, and will be a government-controlled institution. You aren't married by the power of Jesus, but by the power vested by the State in the justice of the peace, or minister, or druid. And there was marriage long before we invented gods.

i dont know who are you agreeing/disagreeing with here but guns are mentioned in the constitution and thus SCOTUS can hear cases on it. marriage isnt mentioned at all like you said - thus my big response on marriage never being a right at all for anyone. The states provided a way to recognize heterosexual couples with perks, bonuses etc etc but the federal government never did institute such priviledge... so definitely that falls under the states rights.
As far as general civil rights, those are only fair

While marriage is not specifically mentioned, Article 4, section 1 states, "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." This is what allows a couple to be married in Kansas, then move to Ohio, and not have to remarry, or otherwise register their marriage. Many are arguing that states that fail to recognize the marriage of a gay couple in another state, are in violation of this rule.

It's the only logical point. I'm sick of the whole gay marriage issue. I could give a fuck one way or another since marriage is largely just a joke nowadays anyway. People fall madly in love, promise never to love another then find "the real love of their life" and move on. Rinse, repeat. 4 or 5 times isn't unusual. It's a joke why not let the queers in on it. That pretty much is the icing on top.

I have not followed the case very close, but that is a good argument, and I am sure is in the briefs that went to the Court. I am interest in seeing where the court falls on this issue. I suspect there will be multiple concurring and dissenting opinions.

Lots of things aren't mentioned in the Constitution. This is why we have the 9th Amendment which makes it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the Constitution does not contain an enumeration of the rights of the people, and that not listing a right means nothing about whether or not such a right exists.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

thanks rossz, i was just ready to paste this - in hindsight should have earlier. the federal government at its base is there to defend against attack, provide for the general welfare and a few other things. DOMA really should have been an amendment to the constitution instead of just a federal law signed by a now defunct president. It doesnt really make sense for every state to accept every law from ever other state - although wiki does separate common law vs judgements in this regard(Full Faith & Credi

Not when a legal matter crosses state line. Currently marriage in one state is recognized by other states. If one state defines it significantly different than another, who is the arbiter? The federal courts are the arbiters.

Uh, they currently are.

Really? Please elaborate on this. Also should they be different? All police across the country must read the accused their rights. This was decided by Miranda (1966). Before then each state and local area had different rules about this. While the exact wording of the Miranda warn

First of all, marriage is NOT a right and never has been, even for heterosexuals. The individuals states have taken it upon themselves to allow, as a PRIVILEDGE, heterosexuals to marry legally within that state(by way of marriage certificates) and offers certain benefits within that marriage unit. The states long ago, realized that encouraging marriages between two people would be beneficial for the state because as nature would have it, a heterosexual union was the best chance for a stable environment to r

DOMA was put into place as a way to keep states from recognizing any other states law regarding gay marriage. So Florida wouldnt be forced to recognize a couples gay marriage certificate from California. It doesnt stop California from deciding whether or not it wants gay marriage. I'm not sure why this even came into question.

If the full faith and credit clause is such a big deal when Bill Clinton was ready to sign it in 1996, then how is it that the supreme court(or any lower court) didn't rule on it then and stop the law from going into action?

So before the United States came into being there weren't any marriages!!! Hooray for the USA! ("Helping people 'hook-up' for over 200 years!!!)... Or you are just plain wrong.

Here is a very important detail that just doesn't get noticed:
The US Constitution and Bill Of Rights DOES NOT GRANT ANY RIGHTS to the people. The people already had those rights. Those documents recognize those rights and protect those rights from intrusion by the government.

You might remember another document that said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Yup, it is "self-evident" that these rights do not come from any gooberment proclamation. That fact that people seem to think that the government has rights over PEOPLE is one of the major problems that we have nowadays.

the way we disagree here is that the purpose of some priviledges/perks offer to married heterosexual couples come with "package deals"(children) no pun intended. The idea was, was that heterosexual couples would have kids that would grow up to be considerate, disciplined, well rounded, stable state citizens who would then provide, as I stated above, positive contributions when they grow up and get jobs and buy stuff/pay taxes.
The states are saying here, "hey we want to have stable children and children ou

I don't agree with anything you have said. Every state in the US allows adoption by single parents. It's not an argument.

Another fact of the matter is that there is research that shows gay parents on average get just as good results as hetero parents and better than single parents, and far better than foster homes. Gay parents after all have to make a real commitment to the process before getting a child. What matters most seems to be the number of parents.

The only thing is, the IRS Recognizes Marriage for a tax benefit and as marriage, which is a Religious Institution as most states define it, the Federal Government is then in violation of the Seperation of State and Religion provision of the U.S. Constituion - so it becomes a matter for the SCOTUS to hear.

It is also the reason that the marriage deduction (benefit) along with the married but filing seperately (penalty) have been quietely removed as the question was raised in regards to the penalty a few year

there is no separation of state and religion. there is no such clause. not even the words "separation", "church" or "state".
the supreme court redefined what the meaning of the first amendment even means in that regard and had to look to a document outside of the confines of the constitution to even have something to go by(and they even got the intent of this phrase wrong). Even so, the document or paragraph by Jefferson regarding "separation of church & state" referred to a state Church - whereas all

there is no separation of state and religion. there is no such clause. not even the words "separation", "church" or "state".

I see you are one of those people that pretends that the Establishment clause does not exist:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;. ..

The text in the Constitution says that Congress must remain neutral when it comes to all religions. Thus separation.

the supreme court redefined what the meaning of the first amendment even means in that regard and had to look to a document outside of the confines of the constitution to even have something to go by(and they even got the intent of this phrase wrong).

The words are quite evident if you bother to read them.

Even so, the document or paragraph by Jefferson regarding "separation of church & state" referred to a state Church - whereas all of Great Britain was under one denomination and they did not want that for American was one of the main reasons why they fled their old country to begin with.

Jefferson drafted the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom [wikipedia.org] which explicitly states: "Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforc

The individuals states have taken it upon themselves to allow, as a PRIVILEDGE, heterosexuals to marry legally within that state(by way of marriage certificates) and offers certain benefits within that marriage unit. The states long ago, realized that encouraging marriages between two people would be beneficial for the state because as nature would have it, a heterosexual union was the best chance for a stable environment to reproduce and raise up children who would yield future positive contributions to that state (get good jobs, pay state taxes, buy goods, etc) and then themselves get married and the cycle continues. So yes, it is a state issue, not a federal one.

Um, what? Marriage has been codified into law for many centuries before the formation of the United States. The states back in their legislatures did not formally decide any such matter. They drafted upon older statutes like in English Common Law with the exception being Louisiana which relied on Napoleonic code. There was no grand plan as you describe it.

Marriage has always been defined by the culture. At times this intersects with the religion of that culture, but not always. Buddhism, for example,

Absolutely not. No state should be able to withhold civil rights. Especially when other states grant full rights. Further, Civil Rights shouldn't be up for ballot measures or public vote. If Jim Crow laws and black Civil Rights had been up for public vote, we wouldn't be where we are now. We would still be segregated. In case many forget, the government had to send in the military to enforce school de-segregation. And I fully support that. No st

how does providing benefits or recognizing heterosexual marriage interfere with federal law? there is no federal law concerning marriage at all..and again marriage is not a right anyway. never has been, before states assembled and back even further than that.

How about the US federal tax code? Close enough? A couple "married filing jointly" receive federal tax benefits not available to the unmarried... or to those who are married but the federal court refuses to recognize it. Try gelling a married gay couple that "there is no federal law concerning marriage at all" on April 15th and see how far that gets you.

The individual states, via their state legislatures, ratified The Constitution and created the federal government. The federal government has only those powers which are specifically granted to it by The Constitution.There is no authorization for the federal government to conduct a military invasion of any sovereign state. If The Constitution had implicitly or explicitly granted this power to the federal government, The Constitution never would have been ratified.

Ok, a few issues. First, there are *9* black robes in Washington. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court is and always has been empowered to hear controversies arising from the U.S. Constitution. The 4th amendment concerns in this case would be of that nature.

With respect to gay marriage, the Court is hearing challenges to DOMA (a federal law), and cases that determine whether states are in violation of the U.S. Constitution with their particular implementations of gay marriage bans.

You don't think SCOTUS should be allowed to hear a case rooted in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution?
If they aren't there to rule on cases relating to the Constitution, what, exactly do you think is the role of the Supreme Court?
I'm all for States Rights, but they specifically do not include the ability to nullify to contradict portions of the Constitution.

I am not sure I follow you. Article 3, section 2, gives the Supreme Court the power to review cases that involve the laws, and rights granted in the Constitution. This case is asking how much protection the 4th Amendment grants to an individual. I would think you would want one interpretation of a Federal law, rather than 50.

7 black robes in Washington should not be overturning/hearing on individual state laws/rulings unless the founding papers of this great land specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to do so.

The founding papers did exactly that in the form of the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution. Since the Fourth Amendment is Federal law it needs to be applied the same in all States. Had it been State law that was relevant then the State Supreme Court would suffice. In this case it is Federal law and the Federal Supreme Court will probably have to hear it.

Marriage is a different matter in that the right to marry is not part of the US Constitution while protection against unreasonable search and seizure i

A phone message is in fact the same concept as an Email or Private conversation, therefore it should be awarded the same level or privacy and protection. It's also interesting to note that just by reading a phone message you're not going to get the entire story most of the time. I can't count how many of phone messages are extensions of conversations I've had over email and in person, if you read the message on my phone with out the context it will either make no sense or make me / them look bad, when in

What exactly makes a cellphone (or any digital device) different than any other personal posession? Why did it take a special court ruling (and probably millions of dollars) to "clarify" this "issue"? Does the law (and the constitution) not already state that a person cannot be searched without due process?

What exactly makes a cellphone (or any digital device) different than any other personal posession? Why did it take a special court ruling (and probably millions of dollars) to "clarify" this "issue"? Does the law (and the constitution) not already state that a person cannot be searched without due process?

Where in the world did this confusion come from?

Cell phones are carried about on your person. Historically, when you are arrested, the police review and inventory items on your possession. They are able to do so because they are arresting you. Any evidence found on your person is admissible in court. However, the modern day cell phone often extends above and beyond the things that a normal person might carry on their person. You might have thousands of messages, emails, your bank statements, and other personal and confidential information you do not make a habit of carrying with you. If the police need access to that information, and have probable cause, then they should have to get a warrant to do so. Just as they would need a warrant to review my call logs, my bank statement, or to search through my house.

To elaborate, the search incident to arrest is justified for the officer's safety. If you had a sealed letter on you, they could open it because there might be a shiv in the letter. In opening that letter, the contents enter plain view which makes them known to the police.

A cell phone is rightly exempt from this, because you can eliminate any possibility that the cell phone is a weapon without examining the data.

For the same reason you can patent ancient chestnuts by suffixing the claims with "...in a mobile device." All bets are off and no claim is too outrageous.

The powers assume you don't have civil rights until some court says you do. Even the words on a 200-year-old scrap of parchment are re-parsed with each new technological advance (printing press, telegraphy, telephones, etc.) because there are people in power for whom your clearly stated rights are an obstacle to their goals... so your rights are not applicable in this particular case until someone slaps them on the wrist and tells them that the right does, in fact, still apply.

This is the ugly truth behind the often-quoted maxim "the law doesn't keep up with technology." The people behind the law have a vested interest in making sure the established protections of the rule of law can't be applied in as many circumstances as possible, and work hard to redefine each new technological plateau as a new frontier of surveillance, seizure, and self-incrimination.

The men behind the Bill of Rights understood this. This is why we even have a Bill of Rights: because the government needs a standing restraint order against stalking their citizens.

What exactly makes a cellphone (or any digital device) different than any other personal posession? Why did it take a special court ruling (and probably millions of dollars) to "clarify" this "issue"? Does the law (and the constitution) not already state that a person cannot be searched without due process?

Where in the world did this confusion come from?

because cops are assholes who think it's their job to take as much leeway they can get every time they can.

shouldn't be so, but it is. so when they started finding phones in peoples pockets(after going through the due process of determining that they looked like hoodlums) they took the opportunity to treat them as if they had just found everything in the phone as if it was on a printout and hell, since they now had the phone in custody why not try entrapping people based on the good faith they(the friends of the owner of the phone) had on the owner of the phone. because, as you know it's A WAR! a war on drugs and there's no rules on war(well, there isn't if you don't adhere to international conventions anyways). or terror. or for the good of the town. or whatever.

of course it's a generalization but can you blame people for starting to make such generalizations when they stem from real actions..

Do what? The ruling from the court protects a "not doing" not a "doing". It protects your right to not give up one of your encryption passwords. So what was the "it" you are referring to in your questions?

Sure. It protects you but if an officer of the law uses his authority you're helpless and he WILL obtain your data. You can refuse and he can arrest you.

The problem comes when, upon suing law enforcement or trying to rule the evidence inadmissible (I'm talking out of my ass here, I'm not sure what the exact procedures are) you get one of those arguments to assert the legality of the search.

Two justices thought that it was constitutional for police to randomly search through your cell phone, though it seems they did not publish an opinion as to why.

A full report of this ruling should include the justification for such a ruling. I would love to read it!

if I had to guess, it's because they wanted the guy to stay in prison for the 50 year term for the burglary.

now what's puzzling is why the cop didn't get a permit for the cellphone search, it wouldn't have been too much work considering the sentence for the burglary was FIFTY YEARS! so considering the amount going to be spent keeping him in prison for fifty years, the amount of paperwork costs to get the permit shouldn't really have been that much.

now what's puzzling is why the cop didn't get a permit for the cellphone search,

They probably just assumed that they had a right to seize the phone and its contents as evidence, since that's how it normally works (what a person has on them at the time of arrest can be seized freely).

Just FYI everyone, the Florida Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the Florida state constitution, and it's well-settled precedent that state constitutions can provide greater protection than the Federal constitution. The only way this case could have legitimately gotten to the U.S. Supreme Court is if the Florida Supreme Court found that a warrant WASN'T necessary. The defendant then could have asked the USCT to find that under the 4th and 14th amendment one was required.

Actually everyone just ignore that, while what I said is true generally, in this specific case they're ruling on the U.S. 4th amendment, not Florida's equivalent (and Florida is something of a special case in that the Florida constitution explicitly says the USCT determines 4th amendment protections).

Sadly, given recent events with the sequester my first thought was that some high powered politician had to have been affected. Bravo for some common sense from the judiciary. Now lets percolate that up to Washington and spread it around.